The Numbers Are In, And . . .

[Pete Incaviglia]

. . . Our print readership was up 9.1 per cent in 2009 when compared to 2008. Our online readership was up 10 per cent during the same time frame.

No matter how the suits cooked the books, fudged the numbers — if they even did at all — it's good to know we're up.

 

[Ace]

Super, Pete.

Just because they included dogs, cats and parakeets this year if the paper was placed under the food bowls or lined the birdcage is not reason to make those outlandish cooking-the-books charges.

 

[flexmaster33]

good to hear...I assume the budget #s would also be up, in which case the higher ups can finally lift the furloughs and hour-cuts...assuming you are under those conditions as most of us are.

Still waiting for management hear to come in with similar news...almost a year later.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think we might see a trend where readers come back to their newspapers now that all those reporters and copy editors they couldn't stand have been laid off. ;D

Seriously, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the thinned ranks is seen as a plus by some readers who don't have to worry about plowing through a thicker paper each day. The wire-heavy, local rag is "just right" for them now that the news content has been put on a diet.

 

[nmmetsfan]

Now if we can only get ad revenues to follow...

 

[schiezainc]

Now if we can only get ad revenues to follow...

Well, if we could, surely management would hire new people and not simply pocket all the profit that having a smaller staff has created ...